AS folk may be aware, Birmingham has seen the refuse collectors on strike
for nearly a month. This is after a serious of actions that already left >rubbish uncollected.
Some mobile collections have been arranged, but as admitted by the
council no consideration was given to the housebound.
I notice with interest our local Whatsapp group has made enquiries about
a private collection for the whole road ... this would obviously be a >commercial activity and charged to the group.
Given that withholding (the increased) council tax will only result in a >criminal charge and extra costs, what would the best way be to recover
these costs from the council for the statutory service they have not >provided ? A simple MCOL submission ? Or is there another way ?
Given that withholding (the increased) council tax will only result in a criminal charge and extra costs, what would the best way be to recover
these costs from the council for the statutory service they have not provided ? A simple MCOL submission ? Or is there another way ?
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:55:20 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
AS folk may be aware, Birmingham has seen the refuse collectors on
strike for nearly a month. This is after a serious of actions that
already left rubbish uncollected.
Some mobile collections have been arranged, but as admitted by the
council no consideration was given to the housebound.
I notice with interest our local Whatsapp group has made enquiries about
a private collection for the whole road ... this would obviously be a >>commercial activity and charged to the group.
Given that withholding (the increased) council tax will only result in a >>criminal charge and extra costs, what would the best way be to recover >>these costs from the council for the statutory service they have not >>provided ? A simple MCOL submission ? Or is there another way ?
Council tax is a tax imposed by statute, not a payment for services
provided. So there is no contractual relationship between the
householder and the council. A simple MCOL claim, therefore, would be
bound to fail, as the council owes no consideration to the householder
which can be enforced by a court.
If decisions made by the council can be shown to have discriminated
against a person or persons based on protected characteristics (eg,
offering a mobile bin collection which is inaccessible to those with
certain disabilities), then a judicial review may have some prospect of success. But the courts will expect other avenues to have been exhausted first, including a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
If the council can be proven (to the satisfaction of a court) to have
engaged in unlawful discrimination, then a subsequent claim for
compensation would have a strong prospect of success.
All of that is likely to require professional legal advice though. If
there is a realistic prospect of success, then it's the sort of thing
that a no-win-no-fee firm might be interested in taking on.
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
AS folk may be aware, Birmingham has seen the refuse collectors on strike
for nearly a month. This is after a serious of actions that already left rubbish uncollected.
Some mobile collections have been arranged, but as admitted by the
council no consideration was given to the housebound.
I notice with interest our local Whatsapp group has made enquiries about
a private collection for the whole road ... this would obviously be a commercial activity and charged to the group.
Given that withholding (the increased) council tax will only result in a criminal charge and extra costs,
what would the best way be to recover these costs from the council for
the statutory service they have not provided ? A simple MCOL
submission ? Or is there another way ?
On 04/04/2025 16:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
I really don't begin to understand the law in this area. How does this situation differ from suing the NHS when they make mistakes?
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 15:33:48 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:55:20 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
AS folk may be aware, Birmingham has seen the refuse collectors on
strike for nearly a month. This is after a serious of actions that >>>already left rubbish uncollected.
Some mobile collections have been arranged, but as admitted by the >>>council no consideration was given to the housebound.
I notice with interest our local Whatsapp group has made enquiries
about a private collection for the whole road ... this would
obviously be a commercial activity and charged to the group.
Given that withholding (the increased) council tax will only result
in a criminal charge and extra costs, what would the best way be to >>>recover these costs from the council for the statutory service they
have not provided ? A simple MCOL submission ? Or is there another
way ?
Council tax is a tax imposed by statute, not a payment for services
provided. So there is no contractual relationship between the
householder and the council. A simple MCOL claim, therefore, would be
bound to fail, as the council owes no consideration to the
householder which can be enforced by a court.
If decisions made by the council can be shown to have discriminated
against a person or persons based on protected characteristics (eg,
offering a mobile bin collection which is inaccessible to those with
certain disabilities), then a judicial review may have some prospect
of success. But the courts will expect other avenues to have been
exhausted first, including a complaint to the Local Government
Ombudsman.
If the council can be proven (to the satisfaction of a court) to have
engaged in unlawful discrimination, then a subsequent claim for
compensation would have a strong prospect of success.
All of that is likely to require professional legal advice though. If
there is a realistic prospect of success, then it's the sort of thing
that a no-win-no-fee firm might be interested in taking on.
Of course able bodied residents are also asking the question as to how
to claim the costs back from the council.
The bottom line is that a service which is supposed to be provided
under pain of being jailed if you don't pay for it, is not being
provided. And with the temperatures rising faster than the piles of
bags, there is a risk to health too.
Even if the present administration were to be removed in the upcoming election, there is still no remedy for monies already paid to cover
what the council are required by law to provide.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They
are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and
just make the situation worse.
Of course able bodied residents are also asking the question as to how to >claim the costs back from the council.
The bottom line is that a service which is supposed to be provided under
pain of being jailed if you don't pay for it, is not being provided. And
with the temperatures rising faster than the piles of bags, there is a
risk to health too.
Even if the present administration were to be removed in the upcoming >election, there is still no remedy for monies already paid to cover what
the council are required by law to provide.
I wonder if the law allows central or local government to instruct >contractors (or even the military) to remove the rubbish in Birmingham,
as it constitutes a danger to public health.
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 17:17:11 +0100, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
I wonder if the law allows central or local government to instruct
contractors (or even the military) to remove the rubbish in Birmingham,
as it constitutes a danger to public health.
It does. But BCC's problem is that the unions are determined to frustrate
any such efforts.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:00:32 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Of course able bodied residents are also asking the question as to how
to claim the costs back from the council.
The bottom line is that a service which is supposed to be provided under >>pain of being jailed if you don't pay for it, is not being provided. And >>with the temperatures rising faster than the piles of bags, there is a
risk to health too.
Even if the present administration were to be removed in the upcoming >>election, there is still no remedy for monies already paid to cover what >>the council are required by law to provide.
My point is simply that this is a matter of statute, not contract, so
MCOL is not applicable. Judicial Review is the most relevant approach.
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 17:17:11 +0100, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
I wonder if the law allows central or local government to instruct >>contractors (or even the military) to remove the rubbish in Birmingham,
as it constitutes a danger to public health.
It does. But BCC's problem is that the unions are determined to
frustrate any such efforts.
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:40:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:00:32 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Of course able bodied residents are also asking the question as to how
to claim the costs back from the council.
The bottom line is that a service which is supposed to be provided under >>>pain of being jailed if you don't pay for it, is not being provided. And >>>with the temperatures rising faster than the piles of bags, there is a >>>risk to health too.
Even if the present administration were to be removed in the upcoming >>>election, there is still no remedy for monies already paid to cover what >>>the council are required by law to provide.
My point is simply that this is a matter of statute, not contract, so
MCOL is not applicable. Judicial Review is the most relevant approach.
So the sensation - and characterisation - of legalised robbery is
justified.
I really don't think that is a great advert for law and order.
On 2025-04-05, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:40:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:00:32 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Of course able bodied residents are also asking the question as to how >>>>to claim the costs back from the council.
The bottom line is that a service which is supposed to be provided >>>>under pain of being jailed if you don't pay for it, is not being >>>>provided. And with the temperatures rising faster than the piles of >>>>bags, there is a risk to health too.
Even if the present administration were to be removed in the upcoming >>>>election, there is still no remedy for monies already paid to cover >>>>what the council are required by law to provide.
My point is simply that this is a matter of statute, not contract, so
MCOL is not applicable. Judicial Review is the most relevant approach.
So the sensation - and characterisation - of legalised robbery is
justified.
I really don't think that is a great advert for law and order.
If people want to then they can call tax "legalised robbery".
They don't have much of a point though.
On Sat, 05 Apr 2025 14:26:21 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-05, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:40:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:00:32 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Of course able bodied residents are also asking the question as to how >>>>>to claim the costs back from the council.
The bottom line is that a service which is supposed to be provided >>>>>under pain of being jailed if you don't pay for it, is not being >>>>>provided. And with the temperatures rising faster than the piles of >>>>>bags, there is a risk to health too.
Even if the present administration were to be removed in the upcoming >>>>>election, there is still no remedy for monies already paid to cover >>>>>what the council are required by law to provide.
My point is simply that this is a matter of statute, not contract, so
MCOL is not applicable. Judicial Review is the most relevant approach.
So the sensation - and characterisation - of legalised robbery is
justified.
I really don't think that is a great advert for law and order.
If people want to then they can call tax "legalised robbery".
They don't have much of a point though.
Or they have the entire point ?
P.J.O'Rourke once characterised tax as money taken by people with a gun
to grannys head.
When you look at it like that, you become very critical of government spending very quickly.
His point was that *government* should treat tax as if it is gathered
with a gun at grannys head. Then they might spend it wisely .....
On 04/04/2025 17:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 16:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
I really don't begin to understand the law in this area. How does this
situation differ from suing the NHS when they make mistakes?
Well there you're suing under tort for negligence presumably, and it's
personal injury so the courts would presumably be very reluctant to
decide there's no duty of care. With uncollected bins that's not
negligence, the damages are much more abstract, and there's probably
no duty of care. And there's no contract to sue under either.
Caveat: the above are my random thoughts, and might be completely wrong!
I wonder what happens if somebody gets a nasty illness from an
uncollected bin? Or gets heat stroke whilst sitting in the one mile
queue to take stuff to the dump?
On 2025-04-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 16:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
I really don't begin to understand the law in this area. How does this
situation differ from suing the NHS when they make mistakes?
Well there you're suing under tort for negligence presumably, and it's personal injury so the courts would presumably be very reluctant to
decide there's no duty of care. With uncollected bins that's not
negligence, the damages are much more abstract, and there's probably
no duty of care. And there's no contract to sue under either.
Caveat: the above are my random thoughts, and might be completely wrong!
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They
are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and
just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as
a result then the government will just have to refill it again.
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:Can't councillors be liable?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They
are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and
just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as a
result then the government will just have to refill it again.
My annoyance with BCC is that they could have avoided this and so many
issues with pay parity by privatising the bin collection service.
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:05:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:Can't councillors be liable?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance >>>>> or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They
are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and
just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as a
result then the government will just have to refill it again.
My annoyance with BCC is that they could have avoided this and so many
issues with pay parity by privatising the bin collection service.
They could have avoided it by taking the advice they were given in 1975
and then 2012.
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They
are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and
just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as
a result then the government will just have to refill it again.
Can't councillors be liable?
My annoyance with BCC is that they could have avoided this and so many
issues with pay parity by privatising the bin collection service.
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They
are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and
just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as
a result then the government will just have to refill it again.
Can't councillors be liable?
My annoyance with BCC is that they could have avoided this and so many >>issues with pay parity by privatising the bin collection service.
Outsourcing it would also have removed the opportunity for the unions to >strike in pursuit of a political goal.
On 04/04/2025 17:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 16:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance
or damages due to non-provision.
I really don't begin to understand the law in this area. How does this
situation differ from suing the NHS when they make mistakes?
Well there you're suing under tort for negligence presumably, and it's
personal injury so the courts would presumably be very reluctant to
decide there's no duty of care. With uncollected bins that's not
negligence, the damages are much more abstract, and there's probably
no duty of care. And there's no contract to sue under either.
Caveat: the above are my random thoughts, and might be completely wrong!
I wonder what happens if somebody gets a nasty illness from an
uncollected bin? Or gets heat stroke whilst sitting in the one mile
queue to take stuff to the dump?
In message <mf77vjpit3ovkoivpup1qvb5vk94t29vac@4ax.com>, at 10:44:52 on
Mon, 7 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
My annoyance with BCC is that they could have avoided this and so many >>>issues with pay parity by privatising the bin collection service.
Outsourcing it would also have removed the opportunity for the unions to >>strike in pursuit of a political goal.
Genuine question: What actually is their goal, and why wouldn't it also
apply to a privatised bin service?
Genuine question: What actually is their goal, and why wouldn't it also >>apply to a privatised bin service?
Well, I can't speak on behalf of the union. But there are two separate
issues here. The first is the one mentioned by Fredxx, of the equal pay >liability. As an employer, BCC is liable for any failings by itself to pay >men and women equal pay for work of equal value. If, though, the service was >contracted out, then BCC would not be liable for any such failings by its >contractor. So even if the bin company was on the hook for compensation to >its female employees, it would be something for the bin company to sort out. >And, realistically, the bin company wouldn't have such a significant >potential liability anyway, because - unlike BCC - it doesn't employ large >numbers of women on equivalent value jobs. If it has female bin operatives >then presumably it's paying them the same as the men, and its other female >employees are likely to be admin staff who will be getting the same pay as >their male admin staff. So there wouldn't be any question of a massive >liability towards dinner ladies and care workers.
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last
interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs
bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the
District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire
contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the District
Council bailed the out.
It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the name
of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
On 06/04/2025 17:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:05:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:Can't councillors be liable?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific
performance or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services?
They are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and >>>>> just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as a
result then the government will just have to refill it again.
My annoyance with BCC is that they could have avoided this and so many
issues with pay parity by privatising the bin collection service.
They could have avoided it by taking the advice they were given in 1975
and then 2012.
1975 was the date for equal pay and in 2012 BCC lost their case. What
advice is in the public domain they didn't take?
A quick google and it's not obvious?
On 07/04/2025 22:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, I can't speak on behalf of the union. But there are two separate
issues here. The first is the one mentioned by Fredxx, of the equal pay
liability. As an employer, BCC is liable for any failings by itself to pay >> men and women equal pay for work of equal value.
Which is something I find difficult to understand. I would fully
understand if the bin women were paid a lower rate than the bin men, but
it seems to be much more widespread than that, and women in different
roles have been classed as equal to say the bin men.
Take the current supermarket disputes, various courts have ruled that
shop workers (predominately women) should be paid the same as warehouse
staff (predominately men) Why? They are totally different roles.
If a male shop worker or a female warehouse worker were paid differently
to their counterparts then it would be a fair argument, but they aren't.
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 21:56:38 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/04/2025 17:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 13:05:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:Can't councillors be liable?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a >>>>>>> contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific
performance or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services?
They are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and >>>>>> just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as a >>>>> result then the government will just have to refill it again.
My annoyance with BCC is that they could have avoided this and so many >>>> issues with pay parity by privatising the bin collection service.
They could have avoided it by taking the advice they were given in 1975
and then 2012.
1975 was the date for equal pay and in 2012 BCC lost their case. What
advice is in the public domain they didn't take?
A quick google and it's not obvious?
The council were told in 1975 that as a result of the ruling they would
have to ensure pension contributions were uplifted accordingly. That memo
got lost behind a filing cabinet until the early 2000s when retirees
spotted they were being underpaid. Cue another fruitless trip to the
Supreme Court who ordered the council to make up the difference.
Obviously because they hadn't invested in a pension fund, the shortfall
had to come from existing budgets. This sparked an initial round of
paycuts to find the money. This was around about 2000-2008. That has
been an ongoing slow puncture to the council budget ever since.
Add to that a spectacularly failed IT system and you have zero dollars.
Of course the actual culprits are dead, retired, or out of office.
On 2025-04-06, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance >>>>> or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They
are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and
just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as
a result then the government will just have to refill it again.
Can't councillors be liable?
Personally liable, for things they did as councillors?
Not unless there has been some fairly dramatic malfeasance,
I would think.
On 07/04/2025 10:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-06, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a
contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance >>>>>> or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They >>>>> are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and >>>>> just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as
a result then the government will just have to refill it again.
Can't councillors be liable?
Personally liable, for things they did as councillors?
Not unless there has been some fairly dramatic malfeasance,
I would think.
Derek Hatton and his colleagues were of the same opinion and found out
the consequences of their belief the hard way.
On 07/04/2025 22:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Which is something I find difficult to understand. I would fully
understand if the bin women were paid a lower rate than the bin men, but
it seems to be much more widespread than that, and women in different
roles have been classed as equal to say the bin men.
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last >>interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs
bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the >>District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire
contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the District
Council bailed the out.
It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the
name of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised bin >collection a few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to wheel the
bins to the lorry now - no 'real' bin men having to heave them on their
backs as they used to.
On 2025-04-08, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 07/04/2025 10:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-06, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 04/04/2025 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'd be surprised if there was any way. Council services are not a >>>>>>> contract, you can't generally sue for breach or specific performance >>>>>>> or damages due to non-provision.
Can the government sue for non-provision of statutory services? They >>>>>> are the council's obligation in law, after all.
Not that aforementioned council has any money to pay damages, of
course. It would presumably ultimately come out of the same pot and >>>>>> just make the situation worse.
That is the problem with "fining" government bodies, of course. The
money comes out of one of the government's money pots and goes into
another of their money pots. And if the first pot is left empty as
a result then the government will just have to refill it again.
Can't councillors be liable?
Personally liable, for things they did as councillors?
Not unless there has been some fairly dramatic malfeasance,
I would think.
Derek Hatton and his colleagues were of the same opinion and found out
the consequences of their belief the hard way.
If you're referring to them setting an illegal budget that was
unbalanced by £30 million then that is the sort of thing that
Mark has already specifically referred to, and certainly comes
under my description of "dramatic malfeasance".
On 08/04/2025 15:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-08, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
Derek Hatton and his colleagues were of the same opinion and found out
the consequences of their belief the hard way.
If you're referring to them setting an illegal budget that was
unbalanced by £30 million then that is the sort of thing that
Mark has already specifically referred to, and certainly comes
under my description of "dramatic malfeasance".
Yes, I accept what they did was a blatant two finger gesture to the >government of the day.
However I don't see much different if those in control of a council
create a synthetic budget, which is against legal opinion, where the end >result is pretty much the same but just a few decades later and after
legal action.
Councillors are allowed to disagree with advice and opinion. If they were not, there would be little point electing them. We might just as well have fully professional council managers employed to run the councils without having to bother the electorate. Obviously, a competant councillor will take professional advice and opinion into account when making decisions. But, sometimes, there may be good reasons to disregard it. And if it later turns out that those reasons were flawed, then the electorate can eject them.
What councillors can't do, though, is disregard the law. Unlawful decisions can be overturned or reverted, and in the most egregious cases councillors who make unlawful decisions can be personally liable for the consequences.
Mark
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last
interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs
bin department were female.
 That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the
District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire
contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the District
Council bailed the out.
 It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the
name of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised bin
collection a few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to wheel the
bins to the lorry now - no 'real' bin men having to heave them on
their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all day long.
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last >>>>interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs
bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the >>>>District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire >>>>contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the District >>>>Council bailed the out.
It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the >>>>name of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised
bin collection a few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to
wheel the bins to the lorry now - no 'real' bin men having to heave
them on their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all
day long.
It's got wheels,
and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.
On 09/04/2025 09:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Councillors are allowed to disagree with advice and opinion. If they were
not, there would be little point electing them. We might just as well have >> fully professional council managers employed to run the councils without
having to bother the electorate. Obviously, a competant councillor will take >> professional advice and opinion into account when making decisions. But,
sometimes, there may be good reasons to disregard it. And if it later turns >> out that those reasons were flawed, then the electorate can eject them.
What councillors can't do, though, is disregard the law. Unlawful decisions >> can be overturned or reverted, and in the most egregious cases councillors >> who make unlawful decisions can be personally liable for the consequences. >>
Mark
You remind me of my councillor days. Up would come the budget review and
we would clamour for some reduction in the council tax and ask the
Treasurer for our options. As usual the big issues were the housing, education and care items - but as was pointed out, you have to finance
them by law (irrespective of whatever grant central govt. decides to
dish out)
So in conclusion the only remaining options are to either skip painting
the toilets for a year or not re-surface the carpark, etc.
They call it democracy...
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr 2025, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last interacted with
them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs
bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the District Council.
When they ran out of money due to having to hire contract drivers (the widespread
HGV driver shortage) the District Council bailed the out.
It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the name of the
workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised bin collection a
few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to wheel the bins to the lorry now - no
'real' bin men having to heave them on their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all day long.
It's got wheels, and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.
On 09/04/2025 09:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Councillors are allowed to disagree with advice and opinion. If they were
not, there would be little point electing them. We might just as well
have
fully professional council managers employed to run the councils without
having to bother the electorate. Obviously, a competant councillor
will take
professional advice and opinion into account when making decisions. But,
sometimes, there may be good reasons to disregard it. And if it later
turns
out that those reasons were flawed, then the electorate can eject them.
What councillors can't do, though, is disregard the law. Unlawful
decisions
can be overturned or reverted, and in the most egregious cases
councillors
who make unlawful decisions can be personally liable for the
consequences.
Mark
You remind me of my councillor days. Up would come the budget review and
we would clamour for some reduction in the council tax and ask the
Treasurer for our options. As usual the big issues were the housing, education and care items - but as was pointed out, you have to finance
them by law (irrespective of whatever grant central govt. decides to
dish out)
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last
interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs
bin department were female.
 That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the
District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire
contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the District
Council bailed the out.
 It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the
name of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised bin
collection a few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to wheel the
bins to the lorry now - no 'real' bin men having to heave them on
their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all day
long.
It's got wheels, and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.
In message <vt5kbk$fb9c$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:06:29 on Wed, 9 Apr
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last
interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs >>>>> bin department were female.
 That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the
District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire
contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the District
Council bailed the out.
 It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the
name of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised
bin collection a few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to
wheel the bins to the lorry now - no 'real' bin men having to heave
them on their backs as they used to.
 A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all
day long.
It's got wheels,
But they still don't make shifting a hundredweight of content, trivial.
and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.
To be loaded thousands of times a shift.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:vt5kbk$fb9c$1@dont-email.me...
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr 2025, Max DemianIt's got wheels, and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last interacted with
them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs
bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the District Council.
When they ran out of money due to having to hire contract drivers (the widespread
HGV driver shortage) the District Council bailed the out.
It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the name of the
workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised bin collection a
few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to wheel the bins to the lorry now - no
'real' bin men having to heave them on their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all day long. >>
That's not counting the smell, though.
Its bad enough just walking past one; imagine having that up your
nostrils for hours every day, Especially when eating your
sandwiches at lunchtime along with all your mates.
To say nothing of what you must smell like yourself at the end
of the day. In hot weather especially, I'd have thought.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >news:vt5kbk$fb9c$1@dont-email.me...
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr >>>2025, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last >>>>>interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East
Cambs bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the >>>>>District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire >>>>>contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the District >>>>>Council bailed the out.
It's got wheels, and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the >>>>>name of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised
bin collection a few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to
wheel the bins to the lorry now - no 'real' bin men having to heave >>>>them on their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all day long. >>
That's not counting the smell, though.
Its bad enough just walking past one; imagine having that up your
nostrils for hours every day,
Especially when eating your sandwiches at lunchtime along with all your >mates.
To say nothing of what you must smell like yourself at the end
of the day. In hot weather especially, I'd have thought.
On 09/04/2025 13:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt5kbk$fb9c$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:06:29 on Wed, 9 Apr
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:But they still don't make shifting a hundredweight of content,
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8
Apr 2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last >>>>>>interacted with them, the most senior two managers at the East
bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by
the District Council. When they ran out of money due to having to >>>>>>hire contract drivers (the widespread HGV driver shortage) the >>>>>>District Council bailed the out.
It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders'
(the name of the workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised >>>>>bin collection a few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to >>>>>wheel the bins to the lorry now - no 'real' bin men having to
heave them on their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all
day long.
It's got wheels,
trivial.
Yes.
and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.To be loaded thousands of times a shift.
It's a job.
In message <vt5nu0$jd2a$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:07:24 on Wed, 9 Apr 2025, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >>news:vt5kbk$fb9c$1@dont-email.me...
On 08/04/2025 18:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt2su6$1vjmt$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:30 on Tue, 8 Apr 2025, Max
Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 08/04/2025 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
I've seen a female bin lorry driver in Cambridge, and when I last interacted with
them, the most senior two managers at the East Cambs bin department were female.
That operation is sort-of contracted out, to company owned by the District
Council. When they ran out of money due to having to hire contract drivers (the
widespread HGV driver shortage) the District Council bailed the out.
It would be surprising if there were [m]any female 'loaders' (the name of the
workers who take bins/sacks to the truck).
We used to have one where I live (Slough area - who un-privatised bin collection a
few years ago). But the 'loaders' just have to wheel the bins to the lorry now - no
'real' bin men having to heave them on their backs as they used to.
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all day long.
It's got wheels, and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.
That's not counting the smell, though.
Its bad enough just walking past one; imagine having that up your
nostrils for hours every day,
Your brain filters out very-familiar occupational smells after about a week.
Especially when eating your sandwiches at lunchtime along with all your mates.
My observation is they don't bring a packed lunch (starting a shift at 7am doesn't make
that very easy anyway) but stop at a cafe.
To say nothing of what you must smell like yourself at the end
of the day. In hot weather especially, I'd have thought.
The binmen came today, and they don't saunter around (like Amazon delivery drivers),
they sprint. This may well be so that they can
finish the shift early.
--
Roland Perry
A full green bin can be very heavy, and you stamina to 'load' all day long.
It's got wheels, and the lorry has a hydraulic lift.
That's not counting the smell, though.
Its bad enough just walking past one; imagine having that up your >>>nostrils for hours every day,
Your brain filters out very-familiar occupational smells after about a week.
As always, I'm more than happy to defer to the voice of actual
experience, on that one.
Especially when eating your sandwiches at lunchtime along with all your mates.
My observation is they don't bring a packed lunch (starting a shift at 7am doesn't make
that very easy anyway) but stop at a cafe.
Are you sure about that ? That dustmen are allowed in cafes ?
Here you are, starving hungry and about to tuck in to your double
sausage, egg and chips, when the crew of a dustcart sits down at
the next table.
See "after about a week" above.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:47:17 |
| Calls: | 9,797 |
| Calls today: | 16 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,690 |